Warzone 2100 Forums

....

I hear ya. Cool. After wrapping up some loose end biz today, I'm now packing for a flight early am. Off to Calif from
frigid Colorado for the holidays - hanging some at the beach instead of slogging through snow drifts in sub zero temps.
I'll have my LT with me - can't imagine not having a comp and net access at all times - even on holiday there is
stuff I would feel lost not working on. Strange when I look back when pagers were all the hi-tech rage & cell phones the size
and weight of bricks. Catchya l8r...

.

Ok, it's tomorrow morning.

whippersnapper wrote:Now I have also observed a preponderance of lazy minds and dispositions - to the extent they can't even be bothered using Google to educate themselves in 10 minutes flat or less or the forum search engine... or take 15 seconds for a simple post unless they need help resolving a problem or simply are soliciting feedback and even when they get a response they ain't got sh*t more to say and leave ya hanging - makes you feel you wasted your time like a fool. But actually that doesn't bother me anymore as I see it as insight into character which can be utilized by adjusting your future investments of time. Besides, I think most would rather engage a YouTube video than a lengthy post no matter how transparent.

While I agree that using a person's forum posts (in the absence of knowing anything else about them) to judge whether they ar actually interested in a discussion, or are just here to hear themselves speak (or worse, troll up some responses) is the smart way to handle things, it's also sad that one can rarely use that method to generate even positive feedback in a forum (a game forum, at least). Even the honest, decent posters often will not do google searches or scan forums for answers to a question before they ask it; some because that's how they've seen everyone else do it and it's just habit, others because some forum search options suck, and they've sworn them off entirely, and some other times there ends up being soooooooooo MANY returned results to a search it's impossible to find the useful (and correct) one.

It leads to a state-of-events on a forum I like to call "banging your head against a brick wall syndrome". No, I don't have a link to an article, because it's just what it says on the tin . While an intelligent method of operation is the ideal way to handle things, eventually you realize you are just banging your head against a brick wall, and decide it's easier, in order to reach out to a majority of people, to just make a post using as simple verbiage as possible, and then expand if necessary.

Not sure what the "engage a Youtube video" means though... you mean, like, turn on and watch one? Start talking about one? Or meet one in mortal combat?










Anyway, back to RTS-theory.

The third post of this thread highlights probably the most important distinction that needs to be kept fresh in our mind:

This guy doesn't want to play RTS games. He wants to play Civilization.

This is actually a bit off, but is important to note.

What the article writer seems to want is a game that offers both Civilization AND modern-RTS playstyles in a single game. Then he (and Mr. 7-deadly-sins writer) goes on to do what 99% of all article writers seem to do when writing an opinion piece: assume their viewpoint is the best available option, and state that it is the way things SHOULD be done.

Again, let me state that Lords of Magic's hybrid gameplay did in fact offer both styles of game; and if some company out there were to pick up the license and make a LoM2, I would be all over that game in a heartbeat. I would VERY much like to see another game like it was, made with modern technology, a stable MP experience, and a tad more faction balancing. But to say that "it is a necessary step in the evolution of the RTS genre" is over-exaggerating the "average gamer's" desires.

The average gamer likes and hates EVERYTHING at the same time. Trying to make a blanket statement about which is "better" is 1 step shy of blatant trolling.

An example, from the 7-deadly-sins article:

strategy developers began to create lengthy, scripted scenarios as the single-player portion of their games... they use some of the same rules as the core game while often violating others. The AI takes action depending not on its own development rate or strategic priorities but on whether the human has hit certain triggers. This artificial environment takes decision-making away from the player...

The entire above quote is true. However, that does not mean, as it is implied in the article, that it is "bad". The reason a lot of said scripting is present is because they are trying to replicate a series of events that the in-game de-facto rules simply cannot support. For example, there is a stage in Red Alert 3 where the Soviets try to airdrop a force into the Empire to assassinate the Emperor, but due to crazy-huge AA defense, only a single troop and 1 bear make it through. If the game's AI were in full swing, said 1 troop would last roughly 0.3 seconds. But how else would you simulate such a "clandestine" mission if not only can you make your own force, but the enemy was busy making his as well? May as well be just another base to base scrum.



This would cheese a lot of people off, to be sure. An open-world, full-time strategic game is a very valid way to make a computer game (see my boldfaced, italicized, underlined passage). But the implication here that all Strategy-based games should adopt this model is narcissistic at best, and detrimental at worst (and far more likely).

There are, to be sure, a lot of "game players" out there who have limited multi-tasking abilities. Someone out there who is awesome at CounterStrike, may not be very good at Age of Empires, only because despite his reflexes, he simply cannot manage his economy, main base, forward base, peasant raiding party, and main force all at the same time. Even if we include macros so that he doesn't have to manage every individual peasant and production queue, that's still 5 areas demanding his attention at once. In AoE as it is currently, you can get away with only having to worry about 2 of those (main army and economy), while only worrying about the others if its an emergency (like, it's getting sieged). Assuming this isn't a tournament match anyway.

Now let's assume the people in my previous paragraph may like CounterStrike, but they REALLY enjoy RT-Strategy/Tactical games. The discussion so far is that all of these aspects should be added to make a game more in depth, but no matter how clear the macros or clever the interface, it is still more sinks on the player's attention. In AoE, being able to manage all 5 things above will maximize your result, but isn't necessary for victory; if all of them ARE necessary for victory, then the game will simply be out of reach of enough of the target playerbase that it will flop.

Ogre Battle, Earth 2150, Warzone2100... heck, we can even leave the RTS genre. Xenosaga trilogy, Wizardy, Wizards&Warriors (PC, not NES)... there are a lot of games out there which had extreme levels of detail in one form or another, all lovingly crafted, bug-tested, well supported... that ended up either failing outright, or getting the moniker "cult classic" (which as far as the production company is concerned, is the equivalent of being a failure due to sales).


So let me bring up this quote from Sin #7:

Story and games have a checkered history. Too many have suffered from boring cut-scenes, stereotyped characters, and plots that take control away from the player.

Granted, I don't like overused stereotypes anymore than the next guy. But this statement basically boils down to "I don't like it, therefore it must be changed for the betterment of the gaming industry". I know when playing Red Alert 2, I liked the cutscenes just as much as the missions. Obviously, that opinion alone makes the above quote logically invalid.



I add that quote here because I think a distinction needs to be made to separate those who would, and can, actually appreciate the breadth of options being given in this thread and it's links, and those who would find them counter-productive.

In other words, leave the RTS genre alone, referencing a game like WZ2100 or Homeworld (with it's perpetual armies and contiguous storylines, but focus on the action). Make another genre called RTT (for games which are nothing more than a string of individual missions, perhaps loosely tied by some storyline... like SC1 or RA3). And then make a 3rd type, a RTGS (Real Time Grand Strategy) for games like Lords of the Realm2 or Lords of Magic. And then specifically determine which of the 3 (or more than 1 of course) each of the myriad of options would best fit into.

Most of what I have read so far would be ideal for a RTGS, and some would fit into an RTS, but very few would work for an RTT.












*bottom note

To anyone who would like a more defined example of what I consider an RTT, RTS, and RTGS:

An RTT is a game where for each level, completing the objective at any cost is a success.
An RTS is a game where the weight of the cost of forces, time, resources, etc. determines if, even if the objective was accomplished, if the mission was a success or not (perhaps with the exception of the final mission, of course).
An RTGS is a game which has no missions. It has Real Time Battles, to be sure, but each victory or defeat on any front just adds to a larger picture with an over-arching victory condition, like "take over the whole planet" or "be the first to reach X".

.

- Sorry for the delayed response. Made a bet. Was told I couldn't stay off-line for even a day. I said let's make it a week for 20 bucks. Won the bet but more importantly most habits are meant to be broken. It's a cultural thing.

- themousemaster: Ok, it's tomorrow morning.

-- whippersnapper wrote: "Now I have also observed a preponderance of lazy minds and dispositions - to the extent they can't even be bothered using Google to educate themselves in 10 minutes flat or less or the forum search engine... or take 15 seconds for a simple post unless they need help resolving a problem or simply are soliciting feedback and even when they get a response they ain't got sh*t more to say and leave ya hanging - makes you feel you wasted your time like a fool. But actually that doesn't bother me anymore as I see it as insight into character which can be utilized by adjusting your future investments of time. Besides, I think most would rather engage a YouTube video than a lengthy post no matter how transparent."

- themousemaster: While I agree that using a person's forum posts (in the absence of knowing anything else about them) to judge whether they ar actually interested in a discussion, or are just here to hear themselves speak (or worse, troll up some responses) is the smart way to handle things, it's also sad that one can rarely use that method to generate even positive feedback in a forum (a game forum, at least). Even the honest, decent posters often will not do google searches or scan forums for answers to a question before they ask it; some because that's how they've seen everyone else do it and it's just habit, others because some forum search options suck, and they've sworn them off entirely, and some other times there ends up being soooooooooo MANY returned results to a search it's impossible to find the useful (and correct) one.

It leads to a state-of-events on a forum I like to call "banging your head against a brick wall syndrome". No, I don't have a link to an article, because it's just what it says on the tin . While an intelligent method of operation is the ideal way to handle things, eventually you realize you are just banging your head against a brick wall, and decide it's easier, in order to reach out to a majority of people, to just make a post using as simple verbiage as possible, and then expand if necessary.

Not sure what the "engage a Youtube video" means though... you mean, like, turn on and watch one? Start talking about one? Or meet one in mortal combat?

"Banging your head against a brick wall..." good expression for it. "Reaching out to a majority..." - depends what's at stake. In matter's political it's a must. Same in marketing for profit. Can't think of any other context where it would matter to me.

Youtube remark - off the cuff - let's spectate, path of least resistance, watch ourselves do Guitar Hero than learn to make music with an instrument. Granted, a bit mean-spirited. However I have noted folks confusing game world "facts" with RL, blurring the line between illusion and reality which is stupefying when it's not amusing yourself to death.

Anyway, back to RTS-theory.

- By golly, yes - let's.

The third post of this thread highlights probably the most important distinction that needs to be kept fresh in our mind:

- quote: "This guy doesn't want to play RTS games. He wants to play Civilization."

This is actually a bit off, but is important to note.

What the article writer seems to want is a game that offers both Civilization AND modern-RTS playstyles in a single game. Then he (and Mr. 7-deadly-sins writer) goes on to do what 99% of all article writers seem to do when writing an opinion piece: assume their viewpoint is the best available option, and state that it is the way things SHOULD be done.

Again, let me state that Lords of Magic's hybrid gameplay did in fact offer both styles of game; and if some company out there were to pick up the license and make a LoM2, I would be all over that game in a heartbeat. I would VERY much like to see another game like it was, made with modern technology, a stable MP experience, and a tad more faction balancing. But to say that "it is a necessary step in the evolution of the RTS genre" is over-exaggerating the "average gamer's" desires.

- This made me wonder about my own inclination to over state the case when I post. For me I can trace it back to "Strunk & White's Elements of Style" and the caveat of never speaking in the "passive voice" and qualifying statements all over the place being weak prose.

If anyone REALLY knew what kind of RTS would have the widest appeal there would be far less failures and more millionaire developers than have ever been to date.

Beyond the "average gamers desire" of getting totally wrapped up in having fun there is no specific formula or heuristic, that I can see, though as business ventures we need to convince the money folk that they are investing in as near a "sure thing" as is conceivable. We are doing the same thing in convincing ourselves that all the years of hard work it will take to make a game are worth it because he a have handle on a winning design. It is not uncommon when writers are asked WHY they write they answer - "So that I may know my own mind, my life even." But that honest answer smacks of too much uncertainty to suit most seeking an answer for putting dollars into an enterprise for profit.

The average gamer likes and hates EVERYTHING at the same time. Trying to make a blanket statement about which is "better" is 1 step shy of blatant trolling.

An example, from the 7-deadly-sins article:

- quote: "strategy developers began to create lengthy, scripted scenarios as the single-player portion of their games... they use some of the same rules as the core game while often violating others. The AI takes action depending not on its own development rate or strategic priorities but on whether the human has hit certain triggers. This artificial environment takes decision-making away from the player..."

The entire above quote is true. However, that does not mean, as it is implied in the article, that it is "bad". The reason a lot of said scripting is present is because they are trying to replicate a series of events that the in-game de-facto rules simply cannot support. For example, there is a stage in Red Alert 3 where the Soviets try to airdrop a force into the Empire to assassinate the Emperor, but due to crazy-huge AA defense, only a single troop and 1 bear make it through. If the game's AI were in full swing, said 1 troop would last roughly 0.3 seconds. But how else would you simulate such a "clandestine" mission if not only can you make your own force, but the enemy was busy making his as well? May as well be just another base to base scrum.

This would cheese a lot of people off, to be sure. An open-world, full-time strategic game is a very valid way to make a computer game (see my boldfaced, italicized, underlined passage). But the implication here that all Strategy-based games should adopt this model is narcissistic at best, and detrimental at worst (and far more likely)

- I agree with all your points raised. Again I do think it comes back to the "pep talk" you need to continuously give yourself over the long haul as you invest years of hard work necessary to bring a complex project like the creation of a game with any claim to originality from scratch to term. "Originality" being an operative word here in that a hell of a premium is placed on such to simply stand-out in a crowded, competitive, field.

There are, to be sure, a lot of "game players" out there who have limited multi-tasking abilities. Someone out there who is awesome at CounterStrike, may not be very good at Age of Empires, only because despite his reflexes, he simply cannot manage his economy, main base, forward base, peasant raiding party, and main force all at the same time. Even if we include macros so that he doesn't have to manage every individual peasant and production queue, that's still 5 areas demanding his attention at once. In AoE as it is currently, you can get away with only having to worry about 2 of those (main army and economy), while only worrying about the others if its an emergency (like, it's getting sieged). Assuming this isn't a tournament match anyway.

Now let's assume the people in my previous paragraph may like CounterStrike, but they REALLY enjoy RT-Strategy/Tactical games. The discussion so far is that all of these aspects should be added to make a game more in depth, but no matter how clear the macros or clever the interface, it is still more sinks on the player's attention. In AoE, being able to manage all 5 things above will maximize your result, but isn't necessary for victory; if all of them ARE necessary for victory, then the game will simply be out of reach of enough of the target playerbase that it will flop.

- What I find especially attractive about RTS, in general, is that it can subsume all other genre types and in that it stands alone. But again, what makes the difference is just how those varied game play elements and phases are balanced and that remains more art than science.

Ogre Battle, Earth 2150, Warzone2100... heck, we can even leave the RTS genre. Xenosaga trilogy, Wizardy, Wizards&Warriors (PC, not NES)... there are a lot of games out there which had extreme levels of detail in one form or another, all lovingly crafted, bug-tested, well supported... that ended up either failing outright, or getting the moniker "cult classic" (which as far as the production company is concerned, is the equivalent of being a failure due to sales).

- True. You cannot be all things to all people. It's a long shot that a Country Western Opera would appeal to the CW or Opera crowd - though it could find some niche audience. That's risk and the creators prerogative all the way.

So let me bring up this quote from Sin #7:

- quote: "Story and games have a checkered history. Too many have suffered from boring cut-scenes, stereotyped characters, and plots that take control away from the player."

Granted, I don't like overused stereotypes anymore than the next guy. But this statement basically boils down to "I don't like it, therefore it must be changed for the betterment of the gaming industry". I know when playing Red Alert 2, I liked the cutscenes just as much as the missions. Obviously, that opinion alone makes the above quote logically invalid.

- Agreed. I was totally captivated by the story-driven KOTOR and the original Halo, just 2 examples out of many. I surely believe in the power of story. But, in a game, I hold it takes techniques that are not synonymous with the novel and comes under the heading of IF (interactive fiction).

I add that quote here because I think a distinction needs to be made to separate those who would, and can, actually appreciate the breadth of options being given in this thread and it's links, and those who would find them counter-productive.

In other words, leave the RTS genre alone, referencing a game like WZ2100 or Homeworld (with it's perpetual armies and contiguous storylines, but focus on the action). Make another genre called RTT (for games which are nothing more than a string of individual missions, perhaps loosely tied by some storyline... like SC1 or RA3). And then make a 3rd type, a RTGS (Real Time Grand Strategy) for games like Lords of the Realm2 or Lords of Magic. And then specifically determine which of the 3 (or more than 1 of course) each of the myriad of options would best fit into.

Most of what I have read so far would be ideal for a RTGS, and some would fit into an RTS, but very few would work for an RTT.


*bottom note

To anyone who would like a more defined example of what I consider an RTT, RTS, and RTGS:

An RTT is a game where for each level, completing the objective at any cost is a success.

An RTS is a game where the weight of the cost of forces, time, resources, etc. determines if, even if the objective was accomplished, if the mission was a success or not (perhaps with the exception of the final mission, of course).

An RTGS is a game which has no missions. It has Real Time Battles, to be sure, but each victory or defeat on any front just adds to a larger picture with an over-arching victory condition, like "take over the whole planet" or "be the first to reach X".

- I wonder if we will be called on to re-assess these distinctions in the Strategy Genre of Comp Games when War Leaders: Clash of Nations is released in February of 2009.

Much of this discussion originates in trying to minimize risk and figure-out the detailed "key to success"... This is capitalist preoccupation.

What if you approach it from this tack; "I shall make a game I enjoy playing and never tire of. Likely there will be others "out there" that will like wise appreciate what I have done and enjoy in kind."

That is quite a different proposition, I'd say.

As is working off of something that already has preconceptions and a built-in audience and instead making something from scratch that has neither.

For example... I can continue this post as I have proceeded or I can totally extemporize right on the spot without any preconceptions like so...

Let's see, what shall I call it ? How about "Into The Breach !"... that sorta fits. Ok, lets see what comes out of thin air (i'll put it in quotes for easy reading apart from the foregoing):

day blooms skin deep
the well runs dry

dream hunting the
thick tropic under belly

of a serpentine passage resolute
beyond the unbidden journey
headlong into teeth
fear's dissolute portrait

another wayward menagerie
criss-crossing wastelands
slick bouldered treachery
blood sand embankments
nape tingling in the crosshairs

to await a stone heart circus
of madmen, their infernal devices
a swaggering foggy ferver
of innocence untested

be fire my fight
as above so below
my sweet sea spice
my vein of destiny
carved of firmament
coruscating moon cliff

to honor this hunger
no wayside bystander
or standard bearer
or spectator of spleen

rather - into the breach !

- With that I am saying there is the realm of discussion and speculation which while of value in and of it self yet
remains apart from the realm of creation which no matter what is always uncertain and mostly a leap of faith - trust
in the vision and fortitude to see it through.

Regards..........

.

It sounds like we agree on a whole messload of stuff, with perhaps the noted exception of Presentation. So a long reply may be redundant. That said, I just want to highlight this:

whippersnapper wrote:Much of this discussion originates in trying to minimize risk and figure-out the detailed "key to success"... This is capitalist preoccupation.

What if you approach it from this tack; "I shall make a game I enjoy playing and never tire of. Likely there will be others "out there" that will like wise appreciate what I have done and enjoy in kind."

One of the things any gamer over the age of 16 knows is "back in the good old days". Of course, each persons perception of said days is based on when he actually was 16...

But in this case, as with LoM, the reason was that, back in "those days", a lot of developers were, in fact, able to make the game they wanted. When you take Advanced graphics, Voice acting, and Marketing out of the picture, you can actually turn out a rather complex game in a very short time, with a very low budget. However, these days, the only place in the market a game with graphics less than normal-mapped or anything short of full voice acting seems to be the Flash Games.

Honestly, the only way I think I'd ever see a LoM2 is if an independant gaming company just picked it up (well not, LoM expressly, as whatever is left of Sierra might get mad, but you know what I mean), and ran with it. Decided to leave out the voices (save for perhaps a few stock lines such as selecting a unit or town), opeted only for whatever graphics they themselves could pump out in-house, and just ran from there. As for "marketing", they'd... well, who knows. But I doubt they'd do well enough to support it beyond version 1.04.


I hate to do it in an intellectual thread, but I believe I have to quote Ben "Yhatzee" Crowshaw. If the majority of the game buying community has it's eyes set on Captain Bland's Monotonous Adventure because it has eye candy, then frontal-lobe players ARE going to be the "niche" market, meaning don't expect a major name to go making a game like this.

And THAT said, I'll have to give War Leaders: Clash of Nations a look. In Feb of 2009, of course. (Press releases and screenshots rarely do justice to an informed inquiry)

themousemaster wrote: It sounds like we agree on a whole messload of stuff, with perhaps the noted exception of Presentation. So a long reply may be redundant. That said, I just want to highlight this:

- whippersnapper wrote: "Much of this discussion originates in trying to minimize risk and figure-out the detailed "key to success"... This is capitalist preoccupation"

'What if you approach it from this tack; "I shall make a game I enjoy playing and never tire of. Likely there will be others "out there" that will like wise appreciate what I have done and enjoy in kind.'


themousemaster wrote: One of the things any gamer over the age of 16 knows is "back in the good old days". Of course, each persons perception of said days is based on when he actually was 16...

But in this case, as with LoM, the reason was that, back in "those days", a lot of developers were, in fact, able to make the game they wanted. When you take Advanced graphics, Voice acting, and Marketing out of the picture, you can actually turn out a rather complex game in a very short time, with a very low budget. However, these days, the only place in the market a game with graphics less than normal-mapped or anything short of full voice acting seems to be the Flash Games.

Honestly, the only way I think I'd ever see a LoM2 is if an independant gaming company just picked it up (well not, LoM expressly, as whatever is left of Sierra might get mad, but you know what I mean), and ran with it. Decided to leave out the voices (save for perhaps a few stock lines
such as selecting a unit or town), opeted only for whatever graphic they themselves could pump out in-house, and just ran from there. As for "marketing", they'd... well, who knows. But I doubt they'd do well enough to support it beyond version 1.04.


I hate to do it in an intellectual thread, but I believe I have to quote Ben "Yhatzee" Crowshaw. If the majority of the game buying community has it's eyes set on Captain Bland's Monotonous Adventure because it has eye candy, then frontal-lobe players ARE going to be the "niche" market, meaning don't expect a major name to go making a game like this.

And THAT said, I'll have to give War Leaders: Clash of Nations a look. In Feb of 2009, of course. (Press releases and screenshots rarely do justice to an informed inquiry)

- BTW........ I ordered Disciples II: Gold Edition from it's original publisher Strategy First http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/games/D2Gold/ because they are also the folks that publish an other of my favorite Strategy hybrids, "The Combat Mission" Series now going on 10 years strong as an Indie game franchise. The Gold Edition is complete and also includes a Map-Mission Editor whose design I'm also very curious about. Strategy First still sells the original "Disciples 1" too.

- The Vid game Industry is a multi-billion dollar business that last I heard even exceeds the Movie business and thus much development is by committee and shaped by the bankers. The "good old days" do still exist in the Indie Game developer community where much innovation takes place (like "Darwinia") and a team of 3 peeps can put together a breathtaking game like "Project Aftermath" by Gamefaction: http://www.gamesfaction.com/about or the tiny crew that created the hybrid RTS "Savage 1" and now "Savage 2"... http://www.s2games.com/savage/index.php

- But I'd like to get back to a point you raised earlier which deserves much more attention because it is mostly relegated to haphazard art when there is science to draw on when designing the game play mechanics of an RTS - and fundamental science at that.

- I'll begin by quoteing you then I'll get to one of the biggest fallacies concerning the human-computer relationship that very much is at the heart of an RTS's design:

themousemaster wrote:

There are, to be sure, a lot of "game players" out there who have limited multi-tasking abilities. Someone out there who is awesome at CounterStrike, may not be very good at Age of Empires, only because despite his reflexes, he simply cannot manage his economy, main base,forward base, peasant raiding party, and main force all at the same time. Even if we include macros so that he doesn't have to manage every individual peasant and production queue, that's still 5 areas demanding his attention at once. In AoE as it is currently, you can get away with only having to worry about 2 of those (main army and economy), while only worrying about the others if its an emergency (like, it's getting sieged). Assuming this isn't a tournament match anyway.

Now let's assume the people in my previous paragraph may like CounterStrike, but they REALLY enjoy RT-Strategy/Tactical games. The discussion so far is that all of these aspects should be added to make a game more in depth, but no matter how clear the macros or clever the
interface, it is still more sinks on the player's attention. In AoE, being able to manage all 5 things above will maximize your result, but isn't necessary for victory; if all of them ARE necessary for victory, then the game will simply be out of reach of enough of the target playerbase that it will flop.

Ogre Battle, Earth 2150, Warzone2100... heck, we can even leave the RTS
genre. Xenosaga trilogy, Wizardy, Wizards&Warriors (PC, not NES)... there are a lot of games out there which had extreme levels of detail in one form or another, all lovingly crafted, bug-tested, well supported... that ended up either failing outright, or getting the moniker "cult classic" (which as far as the production company is concerned, is the equivalent of being a failure due to sales).

-------------------------------------->

- Let me begin with a banner headline:

Multitasking is a lie. It does NOT exist....

- That's right, there is no such thing as "multitasking". Our brains can only focus on one thing at a time.

- Humans can switch-task (switch our focus between two or more things rapidly) or background task (focus on one task while doing another that does not require focus, like listening to your Ipod while watching bikini clad babes on the beach). Background tasking can be appropriate at times, more often we fall prey to switch-tasking and call it "multi-tasking" thinking we are being extraordinarily productive when in fact we are doing NOTHING exceptionally well.

- So with this true statement of our brains basic focus function limits - HOW can this be instructive in designing an RTS that does NOT resort to TBS mechanics ? I ask that question while still respecting and appreciating that hybrid approach to design... Just believe it can be done better
than heretofore remaining totally in RT. Warzone 2100 is a great example of this as far as needing to evolve along these lines.

- We shall come back to this.

.regards..

- EDIT: I thought I should provide at least one Primary Source reference (not to be confused with a Wikipedia article..)...

Researchers find neural 'bottleneck' thwarts multitasking: Rene Marois and Paul Dux used time-resolved fMRI to identify the brain areas that slow down the ability to successfully multitask.

by Melanie Moran

Many people think they can safely drive while talking on their cell phone. Vanderbilt neuroscientists Paul E. Dux and René Marois have found that when it comes to handling two things at once, your brain, while fast, isn’t that fast.

“Why is it that with our incredibly complex and sophisticated brains, with 100 billion neurons processing information at rates of up to a thousand times a second, we still have such a crippling inability to do two tasks at once?” asked Marois, an associate professor of psychology. “What is it about our brain that gives us such a hard time at being able to drive and talk on a cell phone simultaneously?”

Researchers have long thought that a central “bottleneck” exists in the brain that prevents us from doing two things at once. Dux and Marois are the first to identify the regions of the brain responsible for this bottleneck by examining patterns of neural activity over time. Their results were published in the Dec. 21 issue of Neuron.

“In our everyday lives, we seem to complete so many cognitive tasks effortlessly. However, we experience severe limitations when we try to do even two simple tasks at once, such as pressing a button when a visual stimulus appears and saying a word when a sound is presented. This is known as dual-task interference,” said Dux, a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Psychology. “We were interested in trying to understand these limitations and in finding where in the brain this bottleneck might be taking place.”

The research is particularly timely, as more states consider banning the use of cell phones while driving.

“While we are driving, we are bombarded with visual information. We might also be talking to passengers or talking on the phone,” Marois said. “Our new research offers neurological evidence that the brain cannot effectively do two things at once. People think if they are using a headset with their cell phone while driving they are safe, but they’re not because they are still doing two cognitively demanding tasks at once.”

Identifying the information bottleneck responsible for this limitation required the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, an imaging technology that reveals the brain areas active in a given mental task by registering changes in oxygenated blood concentrations in these regions. While fMRI is an excellent tool for identifying a particular area in the brain involved in a given task, it generally provides limited information about how that area responds over time.

To overcome this limitation, Dux and Marois rapidly sampled brain activity using fMRI while subjects were performing two demanding tasks. Evaluation of the data produced by this sampling method allowed them to characterize the temporal pattern of activity in specific brain areas.

The two tasks consisted of pressing the appropriate computer key in response to hearing one of eight possible sounds and uttering an appropriate syllable in response to seeing one of eight possible images. Different senses and motor responses were enlisted in order to ensure that any interference between the two tasks was not specific to a particular sensory or motor modality, but instead originated at a central information-processing bottleneck.

The results revealed that the central bottleneck was caused by the inability of the lateral frontal and prefrontal cortex, and also the superior frontal cortex, to process the two tasks at once. Both areas have been shown in previous experiments to play a critical role in cognitive control.

“We determined these brain regions responded to tasks irrespective of the senses involved, they were engaged in selecting the appropriate response, and, most importantly, they showed ‘queuing’ of neural activity – the neural response to the second task was postponed until the response to the first was completed,” Dux said.

“Neural activity seemed to be delayed for the second task when the two tasks were presented nearly simultaneously – within 300 milliseconds of each other,” Marois said. “If individuals have a second or more between tasks, we did not see this delay.

“This temporal delay is the essence of dual-task interference for tasks that require actions. By using time-resolved fMRI, we can see its signature in the brain,” he continued. “These findings allow us to now focus on this set of brain areas and to understand why these areas cannot process two tasks at once.”

The researchers are interested in further exploring what is happening in the bottleneck to slow performance and believe the work may have future implications for people performing complex tasks.

“It may be possible to look to the sort of tasks people are going to have to do in a very complex environment, such as flying a plane, and find out under what circumstances these tasks may be less vulnerable to dual-task interference,” Dux said.

For the record, neither Marois nor Dux use their cell phones while driving.

“I’m Australian, and it’s illegal there, so I’m trained not to,” Dux said. “Even so, I would never do it. Dual-task costs can be up to a second, and that’s a long time when you’re traveling at 60 miles per hour.”

Marois is an investigator in the Vanderbilt Vision Research Center and the Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience. The research was supported with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health.

- Source Page: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/register/articles?id=31525

- There are of course a number of other independent primary research efforts confirming these findings as is the way of peer reviewed science.

.- And ............

And THAT said, I'll have to give War Leaders: Clash of Nations a look. In Feb of 2009, of course. (Press releases and screenshots rarely do justice to an informed inquiry)

- True, too often the reality does not live up to the publicity.

- However, I dare say if "War Leaders" falls way off the mark from the promise bespoken below it will be one of the colossal failures of recent memory in the AAA game business.

......

.

- Last post was long so let me extract what I'd like to focus on.

- We have presented 2 new concepts that will prove to be down to earth practical in the design (or redesign) of
game play mechanics and the intimately connected GUIs.

- These 2 new terms will replace "multi-tasking" (it simply does NOT exist & is thus very misleading) and "micro-management (it is
too broad & imprecise to be useful).

- Those replacement practical concepts are switch-tasking & back-tasking.

- An RTS is basically a fun construct for martial decision making to the end of kicking butt in compelling, creative, immersive and satisfying ways that
do not become predictably repetitive or require the manual dexterity of an Olympic martial artist or memorization of an encyclopedic text.

- Both "switch-tasking & back-tasking" as design based techniques can dramatically facilitate the depth and breathe of martial decision making because we can only really focus on 1 thing at a time in real time and these techniques allow for multiple-tasking and prioritization.

- As GPM-GUI designers we too have to make decisions starting with WHAT - HOW - WHEN to relegate to Back-Tasking and the same for
Switch-Tasking.

- Now to bring this all home let's put this into specific WZ terms.... first by analysis of the current state, what-why change specifically, then what and putting it under our 2 new conceptual categories - switch-tasking OR back-tasking...... AND, in the case of "switch-tasking", prioritizing... that is, on a continuum of "mission critical" decision-making, identify what needs to be attended in a particular order of importance in order to execute an overall battle strategy and then a rich variety of possible winning field tactics..

- In this last proposition I will be applying CTA (Cognitive Task Analysis) modus operandi - heuristics to the RTS gaming experience in the specific context of WZ.. If your interested in CTA here is a good place to get started: Take Me There If you are in University you may be able to borrow from your library any number of seminal works including "Working Minds: A Practitioner's Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis" by Beth Crandall, Gary Klein and Robert R. Hoffman.

- We'll leave it there for the moment.

....

You're giving me screenshots right after I said that they are one of the top 3 reasons that big-name developers don't make these types of games anymore .


I now own Disciples 2. It reminds me of a large mix of Heroes of Might and Magic, Lords of Magic, and Ogre Battle. It has, however, ZERO Real Time aspects.

Which is fine, don't get me wrong. But no RT-aspects sort of put it out of this thread.

(And if anyone is interested, I like the game. I like Lords of Magic MORE, mind you, but Disciples2 is still a good play for my taste, and you can't go wrong with $10 for a game and it's 3 expansions)




In regards to War Leaders, it is already out in non-USA locations. That said, the "gamer reviews" I'm getting from that release don't seem to be very praising of it... the biggest complaints I'm hearing are Bugs and Lack of Depth (the latter being less of a raw lack of options, and more of a "if I am controlling a war, I should have more than this available to me"). The bugs I'm not worried about, as if they are taking months to release it elsewhere, they have plenty of time to hammer them out. But a lack of Depth in a game that is supposed to be the very epitome of "every option ever in WW2 available to you" doesn't sound too promising. But, we'll see. I'll observe more reviews once the USA release occurs; maybe people in Germany just don't like it.

whippersnapper wrote:Multitasking is a lie. It does NOT exist....

If you want to be technical of course. Obviously, while I am giving orders to my battle units, I am not "simultaneously" giving orders to my peasants. Unless some game some day is designed for a dual-monitor system, one for battle 1 for economy, and 2 keyboards, with each of my hands on one of them... which I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that maybe 4 people on planet Earth could pull off with any consistency ;p. The general concept of Multitasking in a game is being able to go back and forth between 2 aspects with such seamless transition that you may as well be doing both at once. But if you want to break it down into "switch-tasking" and "back-tasking", I won't stop you .

Now, THAT said, if you want to be more specific about "micro-management", you are going to have to describe what you mean. You broke down "multitasking" a lot, but only have 1 sentence that I saw in the 2 posts saying "micro-management is a bad term". I disagree that it is too broad and imprecise; in the game world, it means exactly giving orders to individual objects to do individual tasks, rather than giving a broad order to a number of objects at once. In each game the most "useful" type of multitasking may be different (Starcraft, for example, the use of "multitasking" meant giving individual fire orders to units to minimize the wasted damage of overkilling a target), but it is definitely a discrete, defined concept that many people do.





Lastly (for this post anyway), let me say that I have only ever played, or even seen, 1 game that is full real-time, with both an "economy" layer and a "battle" layer. That game was Lords of the Realm 3. It was a TOTAL FAILURE, both in terms of gamer reviews, and sales. Which is a shame, after LotR2 (hybrid) was so awesome... so the bar for "RTGS" is set kinda low right now.

You're giving me screenshots right after I said that they are one of the top 3 reasons that big-name developers don't make these types of games anymore .

- It does seem like it's just you and me here but I posted those screens for other folk who wander into this discussion.

I now own Disciples 2. It reminds me of a large mix of Heroes of Might and Magic, Lords of Magic, and Ogre Battle. It has, however, ZERO Real Time aspects.

Which is fine, don't get me wrong. But no RT-aspects sort of put it out of this thread.

(And if anyone is interested, I like the game. I like Lords of Magic MORE, mind you, but Disciples2 is still a good play for my taste, and you can't go wrong with $10 for a game and it's 3 expansions)

- I like it too. My tastes are eclectic.

In regards to War Leaders, it is already out in non-USA locations. That said, the "gamer reviews" I'm getting from that release don't seem to be very praising of it... the biggest complaints I'm hearing are Bugs and Lack of Depth (the latter being less of a raw lack of options, and more of a "if I am controlling a war, I should have more than this available to me"). The bugs I'm not worried about, as if they are taking months to release it elsewhere, they have plenty of time to hammer them out. But a lack of Depth in a game that is supposed to be the very epitome of "every option ever in WW2 available to you" doesn't sound too promising. But, we'll see. I'll observe more reviews once the USA release occurs; maybe people in Germany just don't like it.

- Yep... v.1.03 was released in April '08 and is still available and I read all the bugifixes and improvements that went into it.

- This "limited-release" in a particular country I came across quite early last year with an RTS called "Officers" that I had been awaiting for 4 years at the time - it was only released in Russia... WTF, I said to my self at the time but then I started to think about it especially in the context of what was done with "War Leaders". I have come to the conclusion that it is a new development strategy that is replacing a global beta phase. Basically they will use the German gamers to fine tune the game, tweak it, make changes - which is what they will have been doing for the better part of a year - and only after addressing all the issues raised in that artificially segmented market will they go with a global release. As a strategy for minimizing risk while going through an extreme stress-testing phase it's quite ingenious, IMO.

whippersnapper wrote:Multitasking is a lie. It does NOT exist....

If you want to be technical of course. Obviously, while I am giving orders to my battle units, I am not "simultaneously" giving orders to my peasants. Unless some game some day is designed for a dual-monitor system, one for battle 1 for economy, and 2 keyboards, with each of my hands on one of them... which I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that maybe 4 people on planet Earth could pull off with any consistency ;p. The general concept of Multitasking in a game is being able to go back and forth between 2 aspects with such seamless transition that you may as well be doing both at once. But if you want to break it down into "switch-tasking" and "back-tasking", I won't stop you

- As a developer it's way more useful for me to make this breakdown in designing and coding. There are few things in development more frustrating than committing to code what is ultimately NOT optimal design (or even a dead-end) and having to re-do work. Any tools that can minimize that scenario outcome are very welcome indeed. Other tools I use in prototyping "preemptive strikes" are system dynamic modeling and CTA.

- Btw, the belief in and commitment to the fallacy of "multi-tasking" has had far-reaching detrimental and costly consequences in the global work place economy.

Now, THAT said, if you want to be more specific about "micro-management", you are going to have to describe what you mean. You broke down "multitasking" a lot, but only have 1 sentence that I saw in the 2 posts saying "micro-management is a bad term". I disagree that it is too broad and imprecise; in the game world, it means exactly giving orders to individual objects to do individual tasks, rather than giving a broad order to a number of objects at once. In each game the most "useful" type of multitasking may be different (Starcraft, for example, the use of "multitasking" meant giving individual fire orders to units to minimize the wasted damage of overkilling a target), but it is definitely a discrete, defined concept that many people do.

- Fair enough and it is my intention to come back to this in a very specific way by associating these new concepts of switch tasking & back tasking to to actual GPMs-UIs - like for example the traditional concept of "Special Abilities" is actually a design decision to create "back-tasking" opportunities for the gamer (& NOT switch-tasking)

- Vis a vis switch tasking & back tasking i will be introducing two more very useful terms - autonomous and semi-autonomous tasking. 'Course I'll define those as well and will also illustrate them with examples out of WZ.

Lastly (for this post anyway), let me say that I have only ever played, or even seen, 1 game that is full real-time, with both an "economy" layer and a "battle" layer. That game was Lords of the Realm 3. It was a TOTAL FAILURE, both in terms of gamer reviews, and sales. Which is a shame, after LotR2 (hybrid) was so awesome... so the bar for "RTGS" is set kinda low right now.

- All the more reason for taking up the challenge, for me and my mates anyway. Have no interest in copying what has already been achieved successfully. That is pure artistic temperament that may or may not pan-out in the realm of popularity numbers. Needless to say perhaps but we also do our fair share of post mortem analysis of games that have failed, in one way or another.

- I'll be back with further clarification and those practical examples of switch tasking, back tasking...autonomous and semi-autonomous tasking...all within the common ground we are all into - WZ 2100.

.

------------------------------------>

- Ok... let's recap our tools for analysis and for shapeing the design goals of RTS GPMs.

- The essence of an RTS: a fun construct for martial decision making to the end of kicking butt in compelling, creative, immersive and satisfying ways that do not become predictably repetitive or require the manual dexterity of an Olympic martial artist or memorization of an encyclopedic text.

- Switch-task: switch our focus between two or more things rapidly. (Metrics can be gleaned via CTA tools and/or MP heuristic patterns. Same for the other modus.)

- Examples: finding and capping resources, building structs, driving research, designing units, manufacturing units, upgrading structs, upgrading HPs, upgrading designs, baby-sitting a combat group engaged with the enemy etc.

--------------->

- Background task: focus on one task while doing another that does not require focus, like listening to your Ipod while watching bikini clad babes on the beach.

- Examples; Looping Factory Production, trapping trucks within defenses so that they repair walls, emplacements, HPs as they are damaged. queue building, etc..

---------------->

- Autonomous task: The gamer has to do very little if anything to make a significant event (or events) happen.

- Examples: VTOL re-arming, cyborg mechanic re-pairing damaged units in the combat group to which it belongs. etc..

------------------>

- Semi-Autonomous task: The gamer must initiate the event(s) and can make variant changes or assume total manual control.

- Examples: The player settings for the Unit Command screens, etc...

------------------>

- Some Inferences....

- So the designer decisions become in what category to place GPMs so as to make for the most depth of play and fun for the gamers own decision-making while playing the game to win in a variety of ways and in the heat of battle.

- Then this question becomes 2-fold: you ask it of the design as it flows from what has been assigned to "switch-tasking" ? .... then, at the same time, , can enhancements be made by shifting tasks to back-tasking, autonomous tasking or semi-autonomous tasking to the end goal of abetting switch-tasking pleasurable-pressures, so that gamer decision opportunities are satisfyingly deep and not overwhelmingly frustrating ?

- A pure RTS is only possible by making use of back-tasking, autonomous and semi-autonomous tasking techniques which are often presented to the player via UIs and employ A.I. If you do NOT make use of these techniques you will HAVE to revert to some form of TBS technique which in essence expands the time available for the players decision-making slash tasking....

- Many GPM failures or shortfalls or frustrations or lack of depth or repetitiveness can be traced to a non-optimum distribution of tasking assignments amongst the 4 design choices identified above.
-------------------->

- EDIT: It is not by accident that beyond any inherent merits this is also structured within the OOP paradigm.

- I believe this framework provides a powerful set of perceptual tools for analysis and re-formulation of any pure RTS's game play mechanics, including WZ which still has the same shallow, unsatisfying, MP game play it did the 10 years ago (which in all fairness needs the newly created BetaWidget to fundamentally address)..

- I could have taken it a step further by applying it to WZ in a published detailed analysis (with modification suggestions and the whys thereof) but, to be honest what interests me the most and provides for the greatest personal satisfaction game-wise is making a new RTS... So let me thank all who have taken of their time and brains to contribute to this discussion - it has been fun and, at the same time, of much value to me. All the best and perhaps we'll meet again in another place and time...as it is said amongst some of the first peoples of North America - Mitaku Oyasin !.
.

Penny for me thoughts ? Nah, all for free, whether you want or not. I can be moronic but sometimes i can make sense too
so I say my peace, k.

What up with all this I think helps if you ask two questions before making, adding or changing play mechanics.

(1.) will it make for fun that lasts or will it fade like cotton candy ?

(2.) and why will the fun last and not become boring ?

Look like simple questions but hard to answer it seems. Maybe why peeps stick to changing how things look. These tools could help answer the 2 questions, I think. Also, lots and lots of multi-player play testing with new toys that change the way the game plays, That is how you find what new play is weak or strong. But that is also not easy when those who speak mostly say it's all great and classic already. What a crock. Oye vey - let me cut off my spigot before I go evangelical or worse yet, some foolish display of conviction.. :rolleyes:

L8r, Moro.

Moro_Nick wrote:
(2.) and why will the fun last and not become boring ?

I won't touch #1, because everyone has different "fun". For example, the people on this board are people who like RTS games... if you hate RTS, then this is no fun, regardless of it's design.



But I'll take a hack at #2.

What makes a game fun is to make sure what is fun about it does not become stale.

***PLEASE NOTE***: the following post will NOT pay attention, AT ALL, storylines OR graphics. any game, in any genre, can have be good or bad in these aspects, and it's what separates the 9.0 games from the 5.5 ones. But given 4 games of equal-caliber in these regards... say, an Action, an Adventure, an RPG, and an RTS, you will grab the one whose gameplay most suits your personal taste. And that's what I'm going to post about.




--- Diablo2's "continuous" fun is in finding that "next piece of sweet gear". It's still popular today because random chance means that you may never see that piece of armor, or you may see 3 of them tomorrow. Basically, it's the video game world's equivalent of Video Poker, and just as addictive as gambling (to the people who like that sort of thing anyway). A Diablo2 contemporary, Dungeon Siege 2, has more (and better) voice acting, a larger story, better effects, more options... and yet, isn't nearly as popular, because there is no emphasis on "phat lewt acquisition".

--- Most RPG's "continuous" fun comes from people enjoying watching their "personas" number keep getting bigger (no lewd references in that statement at all...). RPG fans, after all, enjoying watching their avatar grow stronger, that's what makes the genre what it is. Single-player variants do it by just having the cap be so high as to take forever to get there, and MMOs generally do it be continuously adding in more stuff to do whenever 25% of the playerbase has totally exhausted, and 75% has at least seen, everything that there is at a point in time.

--- RTS games do it by 2 major methods: for the VS group of people, it's by having such a balanced setup of distribution as to make competitive matches a pseudo-sport; for the single-player/Skirmish type of people, it's by having the gameplay be so unique as to allow the exact same objective to be accomplished by any number of methods. Note that some games strive to do both at once, but usually have to end up prioritizing one for the other, as the more "unique" options a player has available to him, the more difficult it is to competitively balance them.



So, on to Warzone2100.

WZ's following isn't here because NEXUS is just such a bad villian; it's because, even to this day, the ability to "make your own units" is such a unique concept that it isn't much seen in other games, and that aspect is what keeps WZ2100 in a positive light in the eyes of its fans. That said, WZ probably steers towards the "single player/Skirmish" style of RTS entertainment. Against the singleplayer opponents and the stock skirmish AI (and to a lesser degree, some of the more advanced ones), you can use any number of different strats to emerge victorious. I know if I fight the same fight 5 times, and win it 5 different ways, I just enjoyed myself 5 times over. But for cut-throat multiplayer, the imbalance of the weapons is huge, and that would turn off the competitive-first crowd. Go to any Starcraft or Red Alert3 board, and see if the predominant thread isn't about "X is better than Y, nerf/buff it!". SC and RA3 are games designed for the clicks-per-second competitors, so that's who it attracts, and is "most popular" by.

WZ2100 balance history: Rocket weapons were the bomb. Then the minipod became ridiculous. Now the HC is king of all. (note that I'm not opinionizing the rebalance mods; I haven't tried them).



In this space, I wish to ask anyone actually paying attention to this thread: if you were told that this was your last day to play WZ2100, and you were only allowed to play it in one of them 3 following methods, which would you choose? (please don't make whole posts dedicated to an answer if you can avoid it, but if you want to weigh in, add your answer to a post otherwise discussing the topic )

A) Campaign
B) Skirmish. With or without human allies, your choice, but your opponents will be AI-volution CPUs.
C) no CPUs, Multiplayer.

I'd venture to say that C) is going to get the short end of the stick on this one. Obviously, you can enjoy all 3 aspects of the game, but which is the one that makes you go "yeah, that's what WZ2100 does so well!". And don't take the above to mean that I think SC or RA3 are bad; I liked them just fine. But when I think "what is an RTS to me?", LoM, LotRealm2, WZ2100, and AoE are what pops to my mind.

And just to weigh in, I'd pick B).











So, long answer short, for the RTS genre, what makes a game "not boring" to a player who prefers the Strategy part to the reaction-time part, is the aspect that you can do many different things with a variety of controllable objects, and arrive at the same victorious result. The more options, the longer the game's lifespan.

you should have added a "D" all of the above. myself enjoys all aspects of all the different ways of getting and giving an ass kicking. is the only way to learn what tsun tsu said. if this is too short an answer - go read tsun tsu.

lav_coyote25 wrote:you should have added a "D" all of the above. myself enjoys all aspects of all the different ways of getting and giving an ass kicking. is the only way to learn what tsun tsu said. if this is too short an answer - go read tsun tsu.

O yea, gotta agree with that. Sun Tzu's Art of War is a great inspiration in designing Campaign Missions (designing MP game play mechanics too but that is much more, let's say, challenging - but can be done.) Other sources of design inspiration are Carl von Clausewitz, and 21st century Asymmetric conflict strat-tacs including CyberWarfare and Future Force Warrior / Army After Next doctrine (and the enabling technology).

I come back later today & speak to all the intriguing points raised by themousemaster in his last post. Till then take a look at this short but powerful piece called -

Fun is Fine........Toward a Philosophy of Game Design...

L8r, Moro

----------------------------->

I'm gonna chunk-out my response so it's more accessible-readable.

Here is Part One of my response to themousemaster's last post.

themousemaster wrote:
quoting "Moro_Nick": (2.) and why will the fun last and not become boring ?

I won't touch #1, because everyone has different "fun". For example, the people on this board are people who like RTS games... if you hate RTS, then this is no fun, regardless of it's design.

Let me start by explaining my train of thought for #1: "(1.) will it make for fun that lasts or will it fade like cotton candy ?"

Whipper defined RTS and also defined 4 techniques for implementing RTS game play mechanics. He spoke not only as
a fan of RTS, a gamer, but also as a developer creating from scratch.

Yes, generally speaking, there are as many nuances of "Fun" as there are human beings on the planet Earth. Still Whipper's contention is that there is a subset of humanity that has a love for RTS gaming and that based on the 25 year history of RTS (the first RTS was released in 1983) all the RTS's have commonality as do the folks who find them fun. What I was pointing out was that at every stage of creating an RTS, even before you write your first line of code, you have to ask yourself "Is this gonna be fun to play within the context of everything else concieved so far and also with what is yet to be created ?" The ideal outcome is that most of the game play mechanics that you create-code will be fun for a majority of RTS gamers and that your mechnics are so clever that "fun replay value" will assure longevity and a robust mod community that are inspired to
add to the cannon new twists of fun not even thought of by the original developers.

If you have not already do check out this link on game FUN:

Fun is Fine........Toward a Philosophy of Game Design...


I will continue in a few hours with Part Two of my response.....you could say I am "switch-tasking" and want to do justice by all and not short-shrift any.

L8r, Moro

Moro_Nick wrote: Fun is Fine........Toward a Philosophy of Game Design...

Interesting article. Like all works, however, there are parts that I must object to.

Many game-movie crossovers, such as Wing Commander or Mario Brothers, failed and so did movie-games, such as Atari’s E.T.[9] or Braveheart. Their lesson: satisfy an audience for a movie, a player for a game.

I agree about that the 4 mentioned titles are failures. That said, I hardly consider the posted reason the factor for it.

Wing Commander (the movie) was an exercise in "Sci fi that made no sense at all". Mario brothers tried to decide which aspect of the game it should be faithful to, and which it should change for making a movie's sake, and it failed on both counts. ET failed due to the game being HORRIBLE, even by the standards of the Atari2600. As for Braveheart, the game is bug-riddled and bland.

The distinction I wish to make here is that, all 4 of the above "failures", their failure wasn't related to their movie/video game relationship. In fact, thinking back to it, the Mario Brothers movie seemed more like a title that was key-marketed to a crowd of stoners, rather than video game players young enough to be playing the "cartoony" Mario at the time that movie came out.

Mortal Kombat anyone? Movies and video games can, in fact, live happily together, and succeed side by side (well, at least if you don't try to make a sequel ).

Now, the "overabundance" of one aspect invading another can put people off. For example, a game with 90% cutscenes (say, Xenosaga) isn't going to turn into a smash hit with people who actually want to *play* the game, rather than watch it. But that's a different example; one deals with proportions, one with pseudo-absolutes.

A game designer can borrow inspiration from another medium but not techniques or values. For example, being inspired by the pace in a movie is far from learning how to pace a game from studying pace in a movie.

.

Pure false.

A) Movies are fast-paces; even long-trilogies (say, Lord of the Rings) are going to total in length of less than 10 hours (maybe the expanded DVD trilogy with all the deleted scenes and whatnot will be longer, but you get the idea).

B) Video games need to draw gamers in for periods much longer than 10 hours for them to be commercially successful.

However, A) does not mutually exclude B). You can make a very-fast-paced video game, and have it be good. You just have to know when to do it.

A fast paced RPG will be a disaster... classic-RPGs are the prototype of "slow". But, say... an FPS? If my game of Doom ISN'T paced at an alarming rate, then the game developers screwed up (or I've already cleared the area and am just exploring it). And, of course, I'm leaving out a game like FZero... a racing game is kind of an unfair example here, not that corollaries between it and The Fast and the Furious cannot be drawn.

Another example would be the new Left 4 Dead. In any mode above "easy", the way to "survive" this horror-movie-esque game is to keep moving as fast as possible. It's replay-ability comes from it's multiplayer. But it's pacing is certainly identical to that of any horror movie with guns.

[G]ame development is turning into a circus, costs are skyrocketing, users get bored faster than ever before, and the development of truly new games — new ways of having fun — has all but stopped." Mr. Yamauchi, President of Nintendo

I agree with this quote, but sadly, I don't think it applies to this document. I postulate this instead: users aren't getting bored faster; instead, the base of users that actually *play* video games has expanded well beyond just the "nerd subculture" of the 90s. But the new base has a much lower ability / attention span average than it used to be... so to actually tap into the "largest part" of the current video game market, games have to be suitably simple in their execution.

Nintendo, to their credit, did come up with a new method of "fun", mind you. The touchpad, 2 screen Nintendo DS and the motion-sensitive Wii are sweet additions to the Video Game industry. Props to them for that.

What fine movie resembles ChuChu Rocket?... Chess, Kungfu Chess, ChuChu Rocket, Bust-a-Grove, Bomberman, Pacman...

Not exactly a fair list. All these games are fun (to the right target audience), but none of them have the substance to try and make a movie out of. I can't make much of a Video Game out of the movie "Looking for Bobby Fischer" either .




Now let me hit this quote, which I feel is quite possibly the biggest problem with the bulk of this read:

"They were unanimous in preferring the games to television. They were also unanimous about the reason: active control." ... In a fine game, the player alters the outcome with every move.

Within the span of 2 paragraphs, he made a quote that shines light on the state of the industry, and then states that one of the main reasons for such a state is actually a good thing.

For any game to have a non-linear (AKA player-driven) storyline, you need to devote a large number of writers to develop (at the very least the framework for) multiple story paths, and the other resources necessary to make the game world for said number of possible states. This rivals that of Graphics development and the hiring of big name actors for the reason why video game costs are going nuts.

So which is it? Should games strive to be as player-malleable as possible, or should they take less than 5 years and 50 million dollars to create?

I also find it ironic that he touts the virtues of

Chess, Kungfu Chess, ChuChu Rocket, Bust-a-Grove, Bomberman, Pacman

just before this, when said games are hardly ones where a varying storyline is their primary source of fun .

Also note: I'm sure someone is thinking right now "having an impact on the outcome can just mean whether the hero succeeds or fails". This is also false in any game that has a save feature. Unless your skill is so low as to never win; eventually, you will. And the storyline will be there to show you your win. The Hero will succeed.



Don't misunderstand my reaming in the above comments; games with player-driven storylines are a good idea. In fact, FPS-RPG Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time (along with the TBS-RTS Lords of Magic title you guys have been seeing me repeatedly mention in this thread, and the classic-RPG Fallout1 & 2... 3, not so much). But I know (some of) what it took to make that(those) game(s). That type of development process will not become an industry norm do to simple economics: using that design, games will start becoming very few, and very far between. Other people will then just make similar-but-lower-tier stuff to sell in the interim, and it WILL sell, due to lack of alternatives. And it will turn a higher profit-per-unit due to it's development. That's how a capitalist society operates, after all... I wish it weren't, but it is .

Anyway, I think I'm lambasting this one point enough for now, so... on with the rest of the post.



...

Actually, it is unfortunately getting late here, so I'll give a few more examples, but will shorten my responses down considerably.

The more I study the smarter Aristotle gets." In a fine game, the more the player studies the deeper the game gets... When the game ceases to teach the player a new lesson, the game stops being fun.

I think he is overestimating the "average game buyer" these days. The people with the money in their pockets want instant gratification, not a cerebral experience. They can, will, and do, run to the nearest strat guide or cheat sheet at the first opportunity, just to "win at the game".

He learns that self-evaluation and teamwork trump individual excellence.

See above. Some people will form "guilds" in an MMO to maximize their "in-game" potential, but most (I.E. the market developers target) just pick the guy with the biggest damage, read a guide on what to put on him, and go stomp stuff. If they can't, they cancel their subscription. WoW is terribly easy compared to any other MMO, and it's subscriber base is huge compared to all other MMOs combined. I don't think that coincidence.

Or, how about Diablo2 vs. Dungeon siege 2. DS2 has more story, better voice acting, longer play times, and is just as simple to actually play. Why is D2 so much more popular today? Because people can get bots that PLAY THE GAME FOR THEM, giving them maxed-out characters that they can use to... well, trivialize it's actual content. Again, maximum gratification, minimum playing.

A fine game gives insight into the human condition, if you believe: The world resembles a game, and all of us are players—our moves finite, our consequences irreversible.

The majority of game buyers don't want this. They want to have it all their way. Go to ANY developer-sponsored forum board and search for the phrase "we don't want work/life, we want a game". Even if the underlying premises of games and life (and for that matter, the rest of the universe) all have some conjoining equation, you have to understand: today's target demographic doesn't consider anything besides continuous winning "fun".

Any crack dealer will tell you: addiciton beats quality.




Sorry if this whole post sounds bile-filled. But I'm not a big fan of rosy-eyed dissertations who assume that just because they put a lot of emotion behind their arguments, that makes them more valid that ones based on statistics. Wippersnapper's posts are actually going for definitions and explanations, so he's all good (even if I disagree with some of his links); but Kennerly's post is just an academic exercise in "they way it should be", which stops having any real effect once you leave a college philosophy class. We should live in a pure communism as well, as it is the most equitable and fair. But we know how those turn out.







EDITOR'S NOTE:

A post was made before I posted this one, so I will address it as well.

Yes, generally speaking, there are as many nuances of "Fun" as there are human beings on the planet Earth. Still Whipper's contention is that there is a subset of humanity that has a love for RTS gaming and that based on the 25 year history of RTS (the first RTS was released in 1983) all the RTS's have commonality as do the folks who find them fun. What I was pointing out was that at every stage of creating an RTS, even before you write your first line of code, you have to ask yourself "Is this gonna be fun to play within the context of everything else concieved so far and also with what is yet to be created ?" The ideal outcome is that most of the game play mechanics that you create-code will be fun for a majority of RTS gamers and that your mechnics are so clever that "fun replay value" will assure longevity and a robust mod community that are inspired to
add to the cannon new twists of fun not even thought of by the original developers.

I agree with 90% of this (the part about letting a fan base add to canon is a sure-fire way to turn a work into insanity... leave the canon to the devs, if they like a fan idea, they'll throw it in themselves ). But that's not the majority of what the linked article is saying. The linked article claims to be saying what I've quoted from you, but it's just being used as a thin rationale for him to then put forth his personal opinions as to just how cerebral a game has to be for it to be "fun", which i disagree with heartily enough to make a long post about.